Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV23990, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23990    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 29

The Court will hear from counsel on all issues relating to the pending motion, including on the following issues.

First, in its reply papers, Bosch presented evidence from its employee Mr. Hudnut and its investigator Mr. Rowe stating (in effect) that they attended a joint inspection of the scene on September 19, 2019, and no one told them that any evidence would be discarded, destroyed, or otherwise not maintained.  Because this evidence came in with the reply, the Court continued the hearing and gave State Farm the opportunity to respond, by way of a sur-reply.  In the sur-reply, State Farm’s investigator Mr. Koster states (in effect) that Bosch did not request that the refrigerator be preserved, and that if Bosch had made such a request, it would have been honored.

Does either side contest these facts?  How do these facts apply to the spoliation argument?

Second, State Farm argues (in effect) that there was no spoliation because there is no “substantial probability” that Bosch’s case was damaged or impaired by the destruction of the refrigerator.  What is Bosch’s response?

Third, Bosch seeks (among other things) terminating sanctions.  If the Court determines that spoliation occurred and that some level of sanction is, why is a terminating sanction appropriate on these facts (as opposed to a lesser sanction)?